CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Pratima Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Hari Narain Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner belong to scheduled caste community. Petitioner's father Mewa Lal along with sixteen others, was granted lease for agriculture purpose in the year 1975 in respect to plot no.107M, area 0.256 hectare and plot no.232 M, area 0.154 hectare, the name of petitioner's father has been recorded in the revenue records, accordingly, petitioner father came in possession of disputed plot and started agriculture in the same. Petitioner was paying irrigation charges also as per provision. In the year 1994, Lekhpal submitted a report on 3/9/1994 that petitioner's father is not doing agriculture for that last two years, accordingly, recommendation was made for taking action under Rule 61, under Sec. 186 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Petitioner's father filed his objection on 14/9/1994 to the proceeding initiated under Sec. 186 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, stating that he is doing agriculture in the plot in dispute and the crops are standing in the same. The Tahasildar vide order dtd. 8/2/1995 affirmed the Lekhpal report, cancelled the lease of petitioner's father and vested the land in favour of Gaon Sabha. Petitioners filed Revision before the Board of Revenue under Sec. 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act on 6/5/2013 against the order dtd. 8/2/1995, along with the stay application and prayer for condonation of delay was also made. Board of Revenue dismissed the Revision vide order dtd. 12/4/2016 on the ground of limitation as well as on merit and affirmed the order dtd. 8/2/1995. Out of 17 allottees, 9 allottees were served notice for the proceeding under Sec. 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 8 allottees had not been served notice. Additional Collector vide order dtd. 17/2/1995 passed the order against the lease holders, accordingly, the lease holders Mani Ram and Others filed revision before the Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 12.31996 and restoration application was rejected vide order dtd. 19/8/1999. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Mani Ram and Others filed revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dtd. 9/8/2004, setting aside the order dtd. 12/3/1996 and 19/8/1999 and matter was remanded back before the Collector to decide the dispute on merit. In pursuance of the order dtd. 27/8/2004, passed by the Board of Revenue, the matter was heard by the Collector concerned in Case No.88 of 2005-06 (State vs. Mani Ram) in which physical verification was made and report dtd. 6/9/2007 was submitted before the Collector, Kanpur Dehat. The Collector vide order dtd. 15/4/2010 set aside the order dtd. 17/2/1995, dropped the notice, issued to the lease holders, Mani Ram and Others and ordered to record the name of lease holders as bhumidhar with transferable rights, the finding has been recorded that the crops are standing in the disputed plot and the lease was executed long back about 27 years before, as such, the proceeding for cancellation of lease is wholly illegal. On the basis of the order dtd. 15/4/2010, the name of the lease holders has been recorded in the revenue records. Hence, this petition on behalf of petitioner in respect of his lease against the order of Board of Revenue dtd. 12/4/2016 and order dtd. 8/2/1995 passed by Tahasildar.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's father along with 16 others, belonging to scheduled caste community was granted lease for agricultural purpose in the year 1975, petitioner's father, accordingly, started cultivation in the alleged land but the present proceeding after about 20 years has been initiated against the petitioner's father under Sec. 186 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, on the basis of the alleged report of Lekhpal that petitioner's father was not doing cultivation for the last 2 years, although petitioners' father was doing cultivation continuously in the disputed plot but under impugned order, disputed plot of the petitioner's father was vested in the Gaon Sabha and the revision filed by the petitioner has been arbitrarily dismissed by passing a cryptic order on limitation as well as on merit. It is further submitted that no physical verification was done and on the basis of the collusive report of the Lekhpal only the plot in disputed has been vested in the Gaon Sabha. He further submitted that according to the provisions contained under Sec. 186(5) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, proceeding was liable to be dropped as petitioner's father filed objection to the notice issued to him under Sec. 186 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. He placed reliance upon Sec. 186 of the U.P. Z.A. L.R. Act which is as follows:-